French filmmaker Céline Sciamma (Portrait of a Lady on Fire, Girlhood) hosted a masterclass in Spain recently, during which she said (via World of Reel):
There are … very long movies that have a monopoly on movie screens. I make short films because I try to make room for others. Making a three-hour movie means that theaters will only be able to program three screenings of your film per day. If you make a three-hour movie, you are a selfish activist, and not of cinema.
This could be a swipe at any of several of this year’s most prominent films: Oppenheimer [pictured], Killers of the Flower Moon, Beau Is Afraid; Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning – Part 1 clocks in at a little under three hours.
Is Sciamma correct? Are three-hour-plus movies damaging to the overall entertainment environment? Are they the work of selfish filmmakers?
I’m of two minds about this. Stories in any format should be as long as they need to be — no longer and no shorter — in order to tell the story they are telling. I certainly don’t think that either Oppenheimer or Killers of the Flower Moon are too long or too indulgent. On the other hand, there are plenty of films — many of those in the comic-book and action realms — that are over two hours in length, often well over, that could have benefitted from a judicious trim.
Is there anything definitive that can be said about movie runtimes, or is it always a matter of It depends…?
ehh, I don’t agree with selfishness, per se, but I do think films on the whole are too padded these days. Rare is the film I have seen in the cinema that I didn’t think should have been shorter. (Funny enough, Oppenheimer is one of them. Killers of the Flower Moon, however, was very, Very not.)
I do think, from a creative perspective, films should be as long as needed to tell the story, and no longer. But I also think filmmakers who want to tell long and complex stories should recognize how prominent the miniseries, for example, has become lately, especially those filmmakers who are already working with a mega-streamer’s budget (yes this is still about KotFM). At the very least, they should recognize that intermissions were in older epics, and in live theater, for a reason, and utilize them effectively.
But from the perspective of a movie fan who doesn’t have access to much alternative programming in cinemas, long runtimes of highly touted films clearly and frustratingly pushes out screenings of festival darlings, indie films, and other things which are a crapshoot whether I’ll get to see them in a cinema. I am going to fudge these numbers a bit because I don’t remember exactly, but the 24-screen AMC theater that is the closest (still an hour drive one-way) and only multiplex where I have a chance of seeing “smaller” films, one week recently was showing under ten films. Total. and they were the same films playing in the other multiplexes in my area. Because one of these bloated epics was on their IMAX, and their Atmos, and who knows how many standard screens, and just took up so much space. It can be frustrating, so while I don’t think an extended runtime is “selfish” in and of itself, I do despair at the trend.
As a sidenote : that World of Reel write-up was. . . I mean, I don’t read them, so maybe I’m just misreading their house style, but it sure seemed like they wrote this piece simply to call Sciamma a bitter never-won. And they also seem to not think highly of the people who actually *make* films, saying selfishness is an inherent part of being a filmmaker. Idk, it just rubbed me the wrong way. (Sciamma is wrong, though, in saying cinema is the only art form said to always be dying; I will once again reference live theater, which has been said to be on its death bed as long as I have paid any attention, but has obviously not gone anywhere, and won’t. Ever.)
Multiplexes were constructed across the US in the 90s under the argument that with more screens came more audience choice and an even playing feild. There would be space for the latest blockbuster and a screen available for a little indie flick too!
Once they were built, the screens were rapidly filled up with more screenings of blockbuster films. Blockbuster budgets exploded quickly into six figures. Audiences went to see "bigger" movies on "bigger" screens that took literally more real estate, making it hard for indie theatres to compete. As the indie theatres went out of business, so did their curation of indie movies.
There's an aside here about how Sundance tried unsuccessfully to launch indie megaplexes, while indie distributors such as Miramax and studio indies like Focus Films tried to make indie films more blockbuster like, but for the most part indies found their second life in home video and subsequently the streaming "content wars."
The point I'm making here is in the current distribution landscape, the play length isn't a factor of access in commercial cinemas. Open up more screen real estate, they'll just choose another showing of a blockbuster film. The play lengths have grown as a concordant value proposition to the viewer: "bigger" play lengths to justify "bigger" screens (and bigger concessions and thus bigger bucks).
The way to get more access to indie filmmakers is to support more indie cinemas. That's easy to do in the big cities but in smaller cities or communities, these days really is more of a non-profit endeavor or basically movie club.
Obviously you still get the breakout hits in the cineplexes. I still find it funny that I saw Skinamarink in an AMC theatre instead of at the IFC. Purportedly IFC had sold out shows, whereas at this screening the theatronly had about a dozen people and half of them left before the movie ended. Venue and audience matter and some screens are just not the right ones.
But a good example of how the current landscape is stacked against indies is when audiences in midsized cities were super frustrated that superhero multiverse indie Everything Everywhere All at Once wasn't available at megaplexes showing four, five screens daily worth of superhero multiverse relative flop Dr. Strange and the Multiverse of Madness. The former has to win a dozen Academy Awards to be given real estate in some markets.
ehh, I don’t agree with selfishness, per se, but I do think films on the whole are too padded these days. Rare is the film I have seen in the cinema that I didn’t think should have been shorter. (Funny enough, Oppenheimer is one of them. Killers of the Flower Moon, however, was very, Very not.)
I do think, from a creative perspective, films should be as long as needed to tell the story, and no longer. But I also think filmmakers who want to tell long and complex stories should recognize how prominent the miniseries, for example, has become lately, especially those filmmakers who are already working with a mega-streamer’s budget (yes this is still about KotFM). At the very least, they should recognize that intermissions were in older epics, and in live theater, for a reason, and utilize them effectively.
But from the perspective of a movie fan who doesn’t have access to much alternative programming in cinemas, long runtimes of highly touted films clearly and frustratingly pushes out screenings of festival darlings, indie films, and other things which are a crapshoot whether I’ll get to see them in a cinema. I am going to fudge these numbers a bit because I don’t remember exactly, but the 24-screen AMC theater that is the closest (still an hour drive one-way) and only multiplex where I have a chance of seeing “smaller” films, one week recently was showing under ten films. Total. and they were the same films playing in the other multiplexes in my area. Because one of these bloated epics was on their IMAX, and their Atmos, and who knows how many standard screens, and just took up so much space. It can be frustrating, so while I don’t think an extended runtime is “selfish” in and of itself, I do despair at the trend.
As a sidenote : that World of Reel write-up was. . . I mean, I don’t read them, so maybe I’m just misreading their house style, but it sure seemed like they wrote this piece simply to call Sciamma a bitter never-won. And they also seem to not think highly of the people who actually *make* films, saying selfishness is an inherent part of being a filmmaker. Idk, it just rubbed me the wrong way. (Sciamma is wrong, though, in saying cinema is the only art form said to always be dying; I will once again reference live theater, which has been said to be on its death bed as long as I have paid any attention, but has obviously not gone anywhere, and won’t. Ever.)
No.
Multiplexes were constructed across the US in the 90s under the argument that with more screens came more audience choice and an even playing feild. There would be space for the latest blockbuster and a screen available for a little indie flick too!
Once they were built, the screens were rapidly filled up with more screenings of blockbuster films. Blockbuster budgets exploded quickly into six figures. Audiences went to see "bigger" movies on "bigger" screens that took literally more real estate, making it hard for indie theatres to compete. As the indie theatres went out of business, so did their curation of indie movies.
There's an aside here about how Sundance tried unsuccessfully to launch indie megaplexes, while indie distributors such as Miramax and studio indies like Focus Films tried to make indie films more blockbuster like, but for the most part indies found their second life in home video and subsequently the streaming "content wars."
The point I'm making here is in the current distribution landscape, the play length isn't a factor of access in commercial cinemas. Open up more screen real estate, they'll just choose another showing of a blockbuster film. The play lengths have grown as a concordant value proposition to the viewer: "bigger" play lengths to justify "bigger" screens (and bigger concessions and thus bigger bucks).
The way to get more access to indie filmmakers is to support more indie cinemas. That's easy to do in the big cities but in smaller cities or communities, these days really is more of a non-profit endeavor or basically movie club.
Obviously you still get the breakout hits in the cineplexes. I still find it funny that I saw Skinamarink in an AMC theatre instead of at the IFC. Purportedly IFC had sold out shows, whereas at this screening the theatronly had about a dozen people and half of them left before the movie ended. Venue and audience matter and some screens are just not the right ones.
But a good example of how the current landscape is stacked against indies is when audiences in midsized cities were super frustrated that superhero multiverse indie Everything Everywhere All at Once wasn't available at megaplexes showing four, five screens daily worth of superhero multiverse relative flop Dr. Strange and the Multiverse of Madness. The former has to win a dozen Academy Awards to be given real estate in some markets.